>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2001 10:45:14 +0200 (CEST),
>>>>> Noll Janos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (nj) writes:
nj> You might be right, but fsync() might not be needed.
why gamble on something so crucial? this is inviting disaster.
nj> I think the file close should be equal to a sync. Am I right?
not necessarily.
nj> And so, the "worst" that could happen (with a journalling fs), is that you
nj> lose the (new) last line of the file, that's one folder.
1 or 100, what does it matter? it's still inaccurate data. then
you have to rebuild the entire thing?
nj> By the way, since yesterday, the daemon is in live testing now on my system
nj> with 300'000 folders, and 4-5000 active users (daily). Cross your fingers ;)
perhaps your users are the ones that should cross their fingers.
personally, i don't know why berkeley db still couldn't be used for
robustness of data. just having this daemon cache this data in
memory should in itself be a significant performance boost.
afterall, i'm pretty sure that's what netscape (iplanet) directory
server does.
-amos
